Saturday, May 23, 2015

Saturday, May 23, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, USA Today's editorial board lies for Barack Obama, an insider's account of the fall of Ramadi emerges, Haider al-Abadi is again refusing to allow Sunnis to enter Baghdad, why you shouldn't believe 'truthy' Mike Morrell, we again review the attacks on Jean Seberg, and so much more.

The lies about Iraq never end. USA Today's dim-witted editorial board fashioned a series of hogwash statements that they hope idiots will applaud -- idiots on my side (the left) because it's little more than self-stroking. And that the editorial board of any supposed objective paper thinks they can get away with lying demonstrates that the crisis in journalism which helped sell the Iraq War continues to this day. Case in point:

Obama's policies have indeed made things worse. But in arguing that he
should have kept troops in Iraq longer, his critics skip over the
inconvenient fact that he pulled out on a schedule negotiated by Bush.

No, that's not a fact.

Here's a fact for the lying whores of USA Today's editorial board: The SOFA was a three year contract. That's all it was. It was not the end of the US occupation of Iraq.

I went on to repeatedly explain that this was the replacement for the yearly United Nations mandate. That wasn't a controversial call and it had been made in the April 10, 2008 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing by then-Chair Joe Biden and by then-US Senator Russ Feingold among others.

It did not mean that the US left at the end of 2011. It only gave coverage for 2009, 2010 and 2011. A new contract could replace it.

For noting that reality, I endured three years of e-mails telling me I was wrong, I didn't know what I was talking about, the SOFA meant it was the end, blah blah blah.

At one point, I got very irritated and pointed out here that everyone who's broken a contract with a multi-national but managed to keep the seven-figure salary, keep standing. Oh, what, only me?

Yeah, so just stop talking, stop pretending you know a thing about contract law unless, like me, you've walked out on a contract and did so with no legal consequences because you were smart enough to read and comprehend the contract and see where the wiggle room was.

Who was right? The thousands e-mailing with their 'expertise' or me?

In 2011, Barack Obama began serious discussions about a new SOFA with the Iraqi government. In 2010, he backed Nouri al-Maliki -- who had lost the 2010 elections -- because Nouri had promised he would allow US troops to stay on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011. Vice President Joe Biden declared it was a "sure thing" with Nouri as prime minister.

And it could have been. But Barack wanted a smaller number than Nouri did.

Nouri feared a military coup.

Only a military coup.

He terrorized the Iraqi people -- with the Iraqi military and other forces -- and didn't fear them.

That just left the Iraqi military whom Nouri encouraged to break the laws and disobey the Constitution. And if they'd so quickly do that, why wouldn't they also launch a coup against him?

Nouri wanted thousands of US troops to protect him from a coup.

US Senator John McCain has repeatedly accused Barack of tanking the SOFA talks. The reason he makes that charge is because McCain was repeatedly in Iraq including in 2011 when he spoke to various leaders about what was needed to get a new SOFA through Parliament?

Like Nouri, they wanted more US troops. (Nouri also conveyed that to McCain but McCain was not relying solely on Nouri's stated needs.)

To put this before the Parliament (the 2008 one went before the Parliament and 'passed' -- it didn't pass, there weren't enough votes for it or members present), they needed to have a sizable force or it just wasn't worth the political risk they'd be taking (the risk being the backlash from the people as well as from Moqtada al-Sadr and his movement which represented the largest and most sustained element in Iraq calling for all US troops and officials to leave the country).

Barack wouldn't budge on the number and it wasn't worth it politically to Nouri who was also getting promises from Tehran that if he didn't extend the US occupation of Iraq, he could count on Iranian forces to suppress any attempted coup which might take place.

USA Today insists, "But in arguing that he should have kept troops in Iraq longer, his critics skip over the inconvenient fact that he pulled out on a schedule negotiated by Bush."

President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.

And
for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it
represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile
security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed
would prevail. But officials also held out hope that after the
withdrawal, the two countries could restart negotiations more
productively, as two sovereign nations.

This
year, American military officials had said they wanted a “residual”
force of as many as tens of thousands of American troops to remain in
Iraq past 2011 as an insurance policy against any violence. Those
numbers were scaled back, but the expectation was that at least about
3,000 to 5,000 American troops would remain.

The tens of thousands is what Nouri stated he would back. When McCain accuses Barack of tanking the talks, he's making that accusation based on the fact that it was known 5,000 was unacceptable to Nouri.

That doesn't make McCain's accusation true but that's the basis for his charge.

That's too confusing for the editorial board of USA Today.

So let's really underscore that Barack Obama sought to extend the SOFA. This is from one of Barack's rare press briefings (this one is June 19, 2014) and he's speaking with CNN's Acosta.

Q Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me;
that was a decision made by the Iraqi government. We offered a modest
residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security
forces. We had a core requirement which we require in any situation
where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is, is that they're
provided immunity since they're being invited by the sovereign
government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in
self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough
situation, that they're not somehow hauled before a foreign court.
That's a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence
anywhere.

The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us
that immunity. And so I think it is important though to recognize
that, despite that decision, that we have continued to provide them with
very intensive advice and support and have continued throughout this
process over the last five years to not only offer them our assistance
militarily, but we’ve also continued to urge the kinds of political
compromises that we think are ultimately necessary in order for them to
have a functioning, multi-sectarian democracy inside the country.

Samantha Power has stated to various friends that Nouri was willing to give on immunity if Barack would increase the number of US troops and, when he wouldn't budge, Nouri wouldn't either.

But right there, Barack saying he was trying to get an agreement.

So USA Today needs to learn how to be factual and how to tell the truth.

The problem the press has is that they suck up to whomever is in office.

They're little whores to the powerful.

FAIR used to make that point but fell silent when Barack took the White House.

It's why they're useless and why everyone can laugh when a Republican is in the White House again and suddenly FAIR is aghast over the press worship and over the amount of money spent on inaugural balls -- when it was Bully Boy Bush occupying the Oval Office, FAIR thought it unseemly -- at a time of war -- to be holding these lavish balls.

I've been talking to several friends -- high up in the Democratic Party -- about the sudden interest in WMD.

It's been explained that this is how Hillary wins.

If the entire Iraq War is about WMD then Hillary can play the "I'm just a little girl who misunderstood intelligence. I'm only a little girl."

So that's why we've suffered through this talking point for nearly two weeks.

Let's be really clear on something here, if Iraq had WMD, if nuclear weapons had been discovered in Iraq in April of 2003, it wouldn't have made the Iraq War "right," "legal" or "ethical."

WMD is a distraction.

That's all it was in real time.

It was a fear based talking point meant to silence debate and discussion and distract from the illegal nature of attacking a country that has not attacked you.

Hillary's not a little girl.

She's rather heavy and dumpy -- even for her age. And she's a woman, not a girl.

Most of all she was an attorney.

She has a functioning knowledge of the law -- it's how she so often skirts it successfully and semi-successfully.

Even if the delicate flower was misled by intelligence -- she wasn't -- she still knew Just War theory -- it was very big when she was in college due to what was taking place in Vietnam. So she needs to be asked about the Iraq War. Not about the distraction of WMD, but about how someone who knows the law could support illegal actions, a war of aggression.

A lot of people are getting damp panties and jizz in their briefs over the latest 'revelations' from Mike Morrell.

Why?

Do you think he's telling the truth?

What are you basing that on?

That's his mouth's moving and words are coming out?

If so, you're really stupid and I'm not in the mood to sugar coat it.

You're pretty damn stupid.

Anything Morrell's saying he is pre-approved by the CIA to say.

His book has already been vetted by the CIA and they've removed anything they don't want him to say.

Now some truth may be coming out.

It may not be.

But what is known is that every word he's saying is permitted by the CIA.

Do Morrell's words indict the CIA in any way for the Iraq War?

No.

They exonerate the CIA.

Since there are so many dumb people so quick to swallow Morrell as the standard bearer of truth, let's walk through that slowly.

Morrell is making a case in public that the CIA is good, noble and accurate and was misused by Bully Boy Bush.

Every word and story Morrell shares has been submitted to the CIA ahead of time and received CIA approval to be repeated.

You really want to put your faith in Mike Morrell?

Well if you want to be that stupid, go for it.

On the left, anyway, we used to be a lot smarter about the CIA.

Yes, we had name 'academics' on the left who were really recruiting tools for the CIA.

As I've shared before, I know that from personal experience when, in college, the CIA attempted to recruit me. And that professor is still alive. And continued to work with the CIA while being seen as a left hero. (Someone's going to be sweating over this snapshot -- and should. I get really bitchy when I'm surrounded by liars. Right now, I'm flicking my Bic lighter and determining whether or not I'll burn the left playhouse down.)

We also had 'reporters' like David Corn who were always, by coincidence surely, breaking favorable stories for the CIA. In fact, if you remove the CIA from Corn's work, his body of work pretty much is non-existent. 'Reporters' like Corn have always served as mouth pieces of the CIA -- and The Nation and other magazines have gladly embraced that.

The CIA has learned from the FBI which long sought out the entertainment industry to portray them in a flattering light. And too many people will watch, for example, Jennifer Garner's Alias and say, "That whole Rambaldi's tomb and eternal life is fiction" while failing to grasp that the fiction also includes the portrayal of the CIA.

The spy agency that was never to operate on US soil against American citizens is always protected by the press. We've for years noted it was the CIA and Newsweek (of course, Newsweek which was always a cover for CIA agents throughout the world) who destroyed Jean Seberg.

And we've noted the cover up.

We've decried it here since 2005 repeatedly.

As a result the lie that Joyce Harber destroyed Jean Seberg has been modified.

Modified, not corrected.

Here's Crapapedia:In 1970, the FBI created the false story, from a San Francisco-based informant, that the child Seberg was carrying was not fathered by her husband Romain Gary but by Raymond Hewitt, a member of the Black Panther Party.[23][24] The story was reported by gossip columnistJoyce Haber of The Los Angeles Times.[25] and was also printed by Newsweek magazine.[26] Seberg went into premature labor and, on August 23, 1970, gave birth to a 4 lb (1.8 kg) baby girl. The child died two days later.[27] She held a funeral in her hometown with an open casket that allowed reporters to see the infant's white skin which disproved the rumors.[28] Seberg and Gary later sued Newsweekfor libel and defamation and asked for US$200,000 in damages. Seberg contended she became so upset after reading the story, that she went into premature labor, which resulted in the death of her daughter. A Paris court ordered Newsweek to pay the couple US$10,800 in damages and also ordered Newsweek to print the judgement in their publication plus eight other newspapers.[29]

They reference a book in their footnotes. Did they read the book?

I've got that book, I've had it for years and I know the author. David Richards does not say what they say his book said.

But at least Newsweek is now included in the official account.

As we've gone over repeatedly -- and we always will because I made a promise decades ago and I keep my promises -- Joyce Harber printed a blind item in May of 1970. A blind item is when a gossip columnist floats something. When Miguel Estrada was taken down as a Bully Boy Bush nominee, for example, Media Whore Online was doing blind items that suggested someone a lot like him was gay and trolling an infamous DC park after hours. Was the item true? Probably not.

Which is why they didn't name Miguel. But they made sure anyone reading would think it was Miguel.

Joyce was handed the item by her editor (who got it from the FBI though he's repeatedly lied about that fact and for years lied that he had supplied it to Joyce until he was confronted with a photo copy of the original note where he passed it on to Joyce). She ran it.

Jean Seberg was a friend. I liked Jean, I will always defend her.

But most people reading Joyce's column didn't know who the hell she was talking about and probably would've assumed it was Jane Fonda. Jean was a huge star in France. She really wasn't a star in America. She was famous. But if you were thinking some actress was impregnated by a Black Panther leader, you'd think Jane Fonda because (a) she was working with the Panthers and (b) she was the biggest name in film during that time period with the possible exceptions of Elizabeth Taylor and Barbra Streisand.

Joyce's blind item in May of 1970 did not name Jean (nor did The Hollywood Reporter's blind item in July: "Hear a Black Panther's the pappy of a certain film queen's expected baby, but her estranged hubby's taking her back anyway."). It was Newsweek, months later, that printed Jean's name -- not a blind item -- and declared that even though she was still married, the father of her child was actually a Black Panther.

This was humiliating on many counts including the fact that she and Romain were publicly a couple, were going to raise the baby as their own and Romain had standing in France that this rumor did not help. It was also a lie. She was not carrying the child of any American. The father was a Mexican activist.

Here she was a woman struggling to have a film career in America and she'd just been branded a "whore" by Newsweek -- that's what saying that this pregnant wife of Romain Gary's is if she's married to him and carrying another man's child. Ingrid Bergman's film career ended for much less.

Here's what Newsweek printed:Can a small-town girl from Iowa find happiness in Paris? It seems so, despite the ups and downs of her marriage. "It's wonderful," smiled movie actress Jean Seberg, 31, when reporters looked in on her in a hospital in Majorca, where she was recuperating from complications in her pregnancy. "We are completely reconciled -- ironically just when our divorce pages are finally coming through." She and French author Romain Gary, 56, are reportedly about to remarry even though the baby Jean expects in October is by another man -- a black activist she met in California.

Our so-called left press and leaders had lied for decades about reality.

They had glommed on a gossip columnist (Joyce) and used her to trash the FBI.

The FBI had nothing to do with the Newsweek article.

And only Newsweek named Jean Seberg.

Their entire paragraph is a lie.

The quote from Jean was made up. She didn't tell Newsweek that. Even the 'reporter' (Edward Behr) who filed the 'report' noted he had not been able to speak to either Jean or Romain. He was in Paris so he also couldn't observe her smiling in Majorca -- not even with a really long telescope. He was in Paris and his source (one of his two sources) was CIA.

He was doing the bidding of the CIA which is what Newsweek always did in that time. Newsweek's editor Kermit Lansner then ordered that the 'report' be beefed up and included in Newsweek's gossip column "Newsmakers." (Kermit's interaction with the spy community began when he served in Navy intelligence, just FYI.)

Which part of that seems normal?

Leave out the made up quote.

In what world does a supposed news magazine publish the 'news' that a pregnant woman is having the child of someone other than her husband of someone other than who she says the father is?

In what world does that happen when the woman is already in the hospital for complications to her pregnancy?

Find me the journalist ethic that backs up any of that -- there is none.

The FBI wanted Jean destroyed. They were inept at best. The CIA took over the operation and Jean lost the child.

We know (some) of what the FBI did to destroy Jean. We know far less of what the CIA did. Jean made her life in France, she was harassed constantly. But a FOIA won't reveal what the CIA was doing to Jean (driving her insane).

The CIA works very hard to shape their image with the entertainment industry.

Next time we cover this, we'll probably tell the tale of how the CIA 'nudged' (blackmailed) an actress to prevent a film bio on Jean Seberg from being made.

The Nixon administration used the FBI and the CIA and Navy intelligence and other military intelligence to spy on and harass Jean. Even after 1970. And, in fact, the harassment continued after Nixon resigned in disgrace so someone might want to pursue whether Gerald Ford continued those policies or whether the agencies continued them without presidential authorization.

It's not a minor story.

It's a very significant story that goes to the government can tear a citizen apart and get away with it and even be assisted by the so-called free press.

When we started calling these lies out online, Steve Rendall and FAIR and the Beacon Hill Press and others were glad to omit Newsweek -- which is the most damaging -- it proves CIA involvement and Newsweek was the only one that printed Jean's name.

So that we've been able to move the conversation to the point where at least Newsweek's actions are noted (if still underplayed)? I'll take it as a win.

And with the spying going on today, the story of Jean Seberg is more important than ever.

So if Bob Somerby can waste a week (hiding from Benghazi -- the Susan Rice apologist hasn't been so disgraced since he attacked former US diplomat Joe Wilson) yammering away about whether or not a football was deflated and pretending that passes as serious work, we can once again cover Jean Seberg.

On a related note, Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty. When you make a docudrama, you're always at risk of your sources being wrong. Kathryn's film is probably very wrong. It is not, however, pro-torture. It is also not now a bad film. Only if you're an idiot who believes the CIA tells the truth, did you take the film as factual. It's a gorgeous film and it's a moving film. It tells a story. I've never claimed that it told the truth and Kathryn's never pretended that her biggest sources weren't CIA -- so I never expected it to tell the truth. It's a thriller and a little bit more reality based than that awful Matt Damon film The Green Zone which worked so hard to rewrite reality including making the Judith Miller character a reporter for the Wall St. Journal and not the New York Times. Seymour Hersh, "The Killing of Osama bin Laden" (The London Review of Books) is probably closer to reality of what actually happened and, on that, you should be paying attention to those who attack Hersh. Not question, attack. For example POLITICO's Dylan attacked. He wrote a 'summary' of the article calling out Sy for points Sy didn't make. When things like that take place, you should ask yourself who a 'reporter' is really working for? Again, people can question Sy Hersh, they can even disagree with him. But if they're making a point to lie about what he said, you need to ask yourself who they're working for.

While some of his Sunni kinsmen in Anbar province set about working with Shiite militias on a strategy to oust Islamic State, Emad al-Jumaili was making a very different kind of plan.The tribal elder was busy preparing to guard his home and family from those same militias.

“I
have always said I would much prefer to be killed by a Sunni terrorist
organization than a Shiite terrorist organization,” said Mr. Jumaili.

And that's where it stands.

Not surprising at all. In June of 2014, Barack declared Iraq's crises could only be resolved by "a political solution." But there has been nothing more than empty words provided.

There's been no effort at including Sunnis. Haider al-Abadi may be the new prime minister but he's operating out of Nouri al-Maliki's old playbook where Sunnis are (at best) treated as second-class citizens.

Are we really supposed to believe that Haider al-Abadi was again -- again -- taken by surprise?

Because it is also very easy to read this as yet another example of the targeting of the Sunnis.

When Haider pulled this earlier, there was great outcry from all Iraqis
-- including Shi'ites. It was noted that Baghdad belonged to all and
that Haider's actions were discrimination and possibly illegal.

And yet, weeks later, he's doing it again.

At today's US State Dept background briefing on Iraq, McClatchy Newspapers' Hannah Allam raised the issue:
HANNAH ALLAM: Okay. First of all, on the refugee issue, what are
you – what are the discussions with Abadi about letting people in? I
mean, you’ve got thousands of people stranded, four days, they can’t go
back, they get killed, they won’t let them in even with a sponsor now.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So I understand – again,
I’ve been told as of this morning that the bridge has been open for
refugees with a sponsor with a place to – what that means is that they
need a place to go in Baghdad because you can’t just have a – otherwise,
you just have a really chaotic situation which can quickly get out of
control. So the bridge has been open to refugees with a sponsor in
Baghdad. And the UN, again, who is doing just heroic work, is working to
set up facilities for those who are on the other side of the bridge.
That’s what’s happening as we speak, so hopefully, I’ll have a little
more for you in the next 24 hours or so.

AFP notes Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Deputy Prime Minister in Iraq and a Sunni, held a press conference today decrying the closing of the Bzeibez bridge and stating, "Preventing citizens from entering their capital is a crime. The constitution does not allow anyone to forbid a citizen from entering any province." BBC News adds, "There are reports of children dying of dehydration in the heat, UN
Deputy Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq Dominik Bartsch told the BBC. It
is unclear why the Bzebiz bridge was closed, though there have been
concerns that militants could mingle with the displaced and infiltrate
Baghdad."

Children are dying of dehydration. That's who Barack's slipped into bed with this time, Haider al-Abadi.

This is why Haider isn't trusted. Things either never happen or that happen only long enough for a photo op.

The whole point of installing Haider as prime minister -- and he was installed by the White House -- was to give Iraq a fresh start or even the hope of one.

But he's turned out to be as bad as Nouri al-Maliki.

No one wants to read the writing on the wall.

They want to offer excuses.

They want to claim that he needs to be indulged and shouldn't be held to rules of accountability.

Remember that?

When they made the same argument about Nouri al-Maliki?

And how that indulgence led to the current crises?

So, yeah, that's a winning 'strategy' -- doing the exact same thing that led to the crises to begin with.

Reuters maintains, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, a
Shi'ite, sent Shi'ite paramilitary groups out to Anbar to try to retake
Ramadi despite the risk of inflaming tensions with the province's
aggrieved, predominantly Sunni population. But he had little choice given the poor morale and cohesion within government security forces."

A Kurdish Peshmerga commander tells Rudaw that Haider's Special Operations forces not only bailed but did so before Ramadi fell and that he personally told Haider what was happening but Haider looked the other way:Two days prior to the ISIS attack we had accurate information
that the Special Operations had packed up and abandoned their base in
Ramadi.I personally relayed the information through the chain of command and contacted Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.I informed him of the photo and video evidence and location of
hundreds of army vehicles and Humvees of the Special Operations forces
assembled and about to abandon Ramadi.I explained to PM Abadi the exact location of the forces on the
map. It was 4am. They flew a plane to the place I told them and took
photos of the assembled vehicles. They learned that the intelligence was
correct and that indeed the forces were getting ready to withdraw.Later that day more than 200 army vehicles abandoned their
posts and their withdrawal led to the defeat of all other forces that
were in Anbar to fight.Why did the Special Operations act this way? I personally think there was a political reason behind it.As a military commander, I don’t think PM Abadi or the Ministry
of Defense have any authority over the Special Operations. Or it could
be that the Shiite forces close to Maliki committed this act in order to
embarrass and bring down Abadi’s government.

“When
we go home tonight we’re at peace and comfort knowing we’re in a safe
nation … because of the men and women who have worn the uniform,
sacrificed and gave their lives so America could exist
today.”

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, delivered the following
remarks on the Senate floor in honor of Memorial Day:

“As
chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee of the United States Senate
and on the eve of Memorial Day, I think it's appropriate that we pause
for a moment. We debate as Democrats and Republicans
today on the floor of the Senate -- currency, trade, national security,
fast-track, the issues of the day -- in a contentious debate. We do so
freely. We do so without fear of retribution…

“When
we go home tonight we're at peace and comfort knowing we're in a safe
nation … because of the men and women who have worn the uniform,
sacrificed and gave their lives so America could exist
today. I think it's only appropriate that each of us on the Senate
floor take a moment to pause and give a prayer for our soldiers who have
risked their lives and gave their lives for our country.

“For
me as chairman of the [Senate Veterans’ Affairs] Committee, I make an
effort to go to the American cemeteries all over the world to make sure
we're still taking care of them and honoring those
who sacrificed in the way they should be honored. I want to share with
the Senate a brief story to point out how important Memorial Day really
is.

“On
Memorial Day in May of 2007, I went with Senator Burr and other members
of the Senate to the American cemetery in Margraten in the Netherlands,
where over 8,000 Americans are buried who fought
in the Battle of the Bulge to root the Nazis out of Germany and
liberate the Jews from the concentration camps. They were successful,
but they died. I walked down the rows of crosses and stars of David
looking at each name, ostensibly looking for Georgians
to say a brief prayer for them. But I came to the end of row H toward
the back of the cemetery, [to the] last cross in that cemetery, and it
said the following: Roy C. Irwin, New Jersey, died December 28, 1944. A
tear welled up in my eye because that's the
day I was born…

“Seventy
years later, I've existed as a free person in a free society, elected
to the United States Senate, served in the military myself, raised a
family, have nine grandchildren… because of Roy
C. Irwin, who on the day I was born died in the battlefields of the
Battle of the Bulge in the Netherlands fighting for democracy, freedom
and the liberation of Europe and saving the Jewish people.

“No matter what we debate and how
contentious it gets, we must remember what Memorial Day is all about.
It's about those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for you and I to
engage in this debate
and to move our country forward.

“One
other point: We should say a special prayer for the parents of young
Americans who fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan and the current
wars today. We had a tragedy with the fall of Fallujah,
we had a tragedy with the fall of Ramadi [and] we need those parents to
know their sons and daughters did not die in vain. They died for a
cause that ultimately will prevail because we as senators will see to it
that America does what America always does:
…liberate the oppressed of the world and only ask for one thing when we
leave, a couple acres to bury our dead who sacrificed for democracy,
freedom and liberty.

“So on this Memorial Day, as chairman
of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I say thank God for the American
soldiers who fought and died for our country and thank God for the
United States of America.”

Detroit Public Television/Ch.56 Partners with Michigan State University on Veterans
Book

And - Special Programming, Resources On-Air & Online All Weekend Long

As
we head off for Memorial Day weekend, we wanted to showcase an
incredible weekend of programming from Detroit Public Television that
will honor our soldiers.

But first, we wanted to highlight a project we are very proud of…

Over the last six months, we have worked with Michigan State University on a new book,
One
Hundred Questions and Answers About Veterans: A Guide for Civilians.
This guide has sections on military structure, culture and families,
demographics, work, money, deployment and discharge, politics and
resources for more study. The goal of
this guide is to help us all understand and appreciate our military.

The
book is the product of an excellent program, led by MSU’s Joe Grimm,
which develops guides for understanding important communities. Their
work
on this project has been outstanding. It is a pleasure to work with
the team at MSU.

Detroit
Public Television (DPTV) will honor our military men and women with
special on-air and online programming, starting tonight
at 10 p.m. with the Lincoln Awards: A Concert for Veterans and their military families, during which veterans will be recognized for their sacrifices and achievements.

This will be followed at 11 p.m. with
In Performance at the White House: A Salute to the Troops,
as President Obama welcomes stars such as Willie Nelson, Mary J. Blige,
Common, and others, as well as performing members of the armed services
to offer a musical tribute to the service and sacrifice
of our troops.

Tomorrow night at 9 p.m., we join
The Homefront to explore the true stories of military families, their sacrifices and resilience. And, on Sunday, May 24 at 3 p.m. tune in to
A Company of Heroes, a documentary on the men of Easy Company, one of the most revered combat units of World War II. At 4 p.m., see
Omaha Beach: Honor and Sacrifice, followed at 5 p.m. by Nickles from Heaven, which recounts the first African-American U.S. paratroopers. Then, at 8 p.m. see
the National Memorial Day Concert with hosts Joe Mantegna and
Gary Sinise. This annual tribute to America’s military heroes will honor
those disabled for life; spotlights children who lost a parent to war;
and honors the 70th anniversary of
the end of WWII. Finally, at 11 p.m. on May 24, we present Detroit: Our Vietnam Generation, filmmaker Keith Famie’s conversations with Detroit-area veterans, including the late Bill Bonds.

Spend part of your Memorial Day with DPTV as we air
Vietnam War Stories at 11 p.m. This film will feature veterans
reflecting on their service, the sacrifices they made and the strong
bonds they formed with fellow soldiers.

In addition to our on-air offerings, we invite you to join us online at
www.dptv.org/vets
and check out our resources for veterans and their military families,
including special videos with local veterans telling their stories and
links
to valuable resources.

Finally, if you missed it when it first aired, tune in to the third episode of the award-winning series,
Beyond the Light Switch online at www.dptv.org whereby
producers travel from coast to coast to learn about and document the
shifts in thinking taking place in the U.S. military, in business and in
communities and the new ideas and products that could
help reduce our energy use by relying on alternative sources of
electrification.

Spend
this Memorial Day with Detroit Public Television as we pay tribute to
those who sacrificed their lives to save ours. Have a wonderful
Memorial Day.
All the best.

Washington, DC—Today Paralyzed Veterans of America (Paralyzed Veterans) National President Al Kovach Jr.
testified before Congressional leaders expressing the organization’s
concern with funding levels for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
the availability of the Comprehensive Family Caregiver Program to pre-9/11 veterans and their caregivers, and the major construction problems that currently plague the VA.

“The funding levels outlined in the FY 2016 VA appropriations bill
that recently passed the House of Representatives suggest that Congress
(particularly the House) is not committed to addressing the internal
capacity problems that the VA faces, first and foremost, the Spinal Cord
Injury & Disease service line,” stated Kovach. “Moreover, it
reflects an attitude that suggests the VA should figure out how to do
more with less. But taking care of veterans on the cheap was never part
of the deal when our country mortgaged its future on the lives of the
few who came forward to protect it.”

He went on to state: “If Congress is serious about fixing the
problems with timely access to high-quality care and timely delivery of
appropriate benefits, then it needs to get serious about the funding
levels it will provide for the VA.”

In his testimony, National President Kovach also addressed the
inequity of the VA Comprehensive Family Caregiver program that currently
only provides comprehensive benefits to caregivers of service-connected
veterans injured after 9/11.

“No reasonable justification can be provided as to why veterans
injured prior to 9/11 should be excluded from the caregiver program. No
single group of veterans understands the necessity of caregiver support
better than Paralyzed Veterans’ members.”

Currently, the majority of Paralyzed Veterans members are excluded
from these VA caregiver benefits because of the current date
requirement. The law also excludes veterans with serious illnesses or
diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and multiple sclerosis
(MS), both of which have a catastrophic impact on activities of daily
living, and eventually leave veterans dependent upon caregivers.

Also of deep concern to the organization are the major construction
problems that currently plague the VA, particularly in Denver, Colorado,
and that the VA appropriations bill slashes requested funding for Major
Construction by more than $580 million.

In his oral testimony Kovach urged Congress to restore that funding:
“While there are certainly valid concerns about construction projects
such as Denver, Orlando, and New Orleans, all other construction
projects—and the veterans whose access to health care rely upon there
completion—are now being punished by this congressional decision. We
call on Congress to restore the significant dollars that you have
stripped from the major construction request.”

Finally, Kovach expressed some optimism that Congress and the VA will
develop a workable solution to complete the Denver VA medical center.
He emphasized: “We are encouraged by the VA memo on Denver outlining a
way forward on this project and we hope that the Committees will address
this request with the urgency and seriousness it deserves before
reaching the authorization cap.” He concluded: “We urge Congress to give
Secretary McDonald an opportunity to fix this problem created by his
predecessors.”

Read President Kovach’s full written statement from May 20, 2015 at www.pva.org.

ENDS

Paralyzed Veterans of America
is the only congressionally chartered veterans service organization
dedicated solely for the benefit and representation of veterans with spinal cord injury or disease. For nearly 70 years, we have ensured that veterans have received the benefits earned through their service to our nation; monitored their care in VA spinal cord injury units; and funded research and education in the search for a cure and improved care for individuals with paralysis.

As a partner for life, Paralyzed Veterans also develops training and career services, works to ensure accessibility
in public buildings and spaces, provides health and rehabilitation
opportunities through sports and recreation and advocates for veterans
and all people with disabilities. With more than 70 offices and 34 chapters, Paralyzed Veterans serves veterans, their families and their caregivers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. (www.pva.org)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, will be featured on
C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” this Sunday, May 24, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. ET and 6:00 p.m. ET.

In
honor of the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, Senator Isakson will discuss
the importance of taking care of our veterans after they’ve risked
their lives for the sake of our country. He also talks
about the importance of veterans’ health care and reforming the culture
of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) so that tragedies like last
year’s wait time scandal at the VA hospital in Phoenix never happen
again.

“We can’t shortchange somebody who risked their life for you and I,”
says Isakson in the interview.
“We need to make sure [veterans]
get the benefits we pass and promise them. We also need to make sure we
can deliver the benefits that we promise in the future… There should
never be an equivocation over giving a veteran the services they have
earned, they
fought for and they risked their life for.”

In
the interview, Isakson discusses the importance of serving all veterans –
World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and everyone in
between – while reflecting on his formative years during
the Vietnam War Era.

“I’m
a product of the Vietnam Era… and I lost some of my best friends in
Vietnam. I remember the sacrifice and the tragedy our country went
through,”
Isakson continues.
“We need to make sure in the
latter years of their life, they’re getting the care they deserve… We
owe those veterans just as equally as we owe the Afghan and Iraqi
veterans and the World War II veterans and I’m going to see to it that
they get it.”

The Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs is chaired by U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., in the 114th Congress.

Isakson
is a veteran himself – having served in the Georgia Air National Guard
from 1966-1972 – and has been a member of the Senate VA Committee since
he joined the Senate in 2005. Isakson’s home
state of Georgia is home to more than a dozen military installations
representing each branch of the military as well as more than 750,000
veterans.

Michigan Greens Support NewFracking-Ban Petition Drive=========================== The Green Party of Michigan (GPMI) is supporting the latest effort to ban horizontal hydraulic fracturing -- known as fracking -- in the state of Michigan.

A petition drive by the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan kicks off statewide today, aiming to gather signatures to put the matter before voters in 2016. The new law proposed in the petition would ban both fracking and frack wastes from Michigan.

"High-volume horizontal fracking is not the kind of fracking that's been done here for the last sixty years," says Candace Caveny of Lapeer, GPMI's 2014 candidate for Lieutenant Governor. "It's a new process the industry just began using in the 1990s.

"They drill wells down thousands of feet vertically, then more thousands of feet horizontally -- and then they inject a toxic mix of chemicals, sand, and water at great pressure. Nitrogen may be inserted to speed the hardening of the concrete casing. Enormous amounts of fresh water are used and polluted beyond recovery, and Michigan residents will be left to deal with the toxic wastes virtually forever."

Linda Cree, a Green Party member from Michigan's Upper Peninsula and a former co-chair of the Green Party of the United States Eco-Action Committee, agrees. "Fracking poses an unacceptable risk to our health, our land, and our waters.

"Luckily, here in Michigan we have the political tool of the ballot initiative. This allows grassroots people to propose legislation when they see an urgent need that's not being addressed by our elected politicians. With corporate dollars speaking so loudly, we the people have to take it upon ourselves to stop this destructive practice."

John Anthony La Pietra of Marshall, GPMI's 2014 Attorney General candidate, is one of many Michigan Green volunteers joining this year's petition drive. "We urge Michigan voters: sign the Ban Fracking petition. Then next year, we can all vote YES to ban horizontal hydraulic fracking and frack wastes from our state."

GPMI's platform has called for a statewide ban on fracking since 2012. And the party has supported the drive for a grassroots ban since the first petition in 2013.

The petition drive will be discussed at GPMI's next statewide membership meeting, scheduled for Saturday, June 6 at Michigan Migrant Legal Aid in Grand Rapids. For more information about GPMI and its platform, visit

GPMI was formed in 1987 to address environmentalissues in Michigan politics. Greens are organizedin all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Eachstate Green Party sets its own goals and creates itsown structure, but US Greens agree on Ten Key Values:

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.